They only
broke in upon it, like faint gleams of sunshine, for a moment, and then
were gone. In this situation the committee could only console themselves by
the reflection, that they had done their duty. In looking, however, to
their future services, one thing, and only one, seemed practicable; and
this was necessary; namely, to complete the new body of evidence, which
they had endeavoured to form in the preceding year. The determination to do
this rendered another journey on my part indispensable; and I undertook it,
broken down us my constitution then was, beginning it in September 1793,
and completing it in February 1794.

Mr. Wilberforce, in this interval, had digested his plan of operations; and
accordingly, early in the session of 1794, he asked leave to renew his
former bill, to abolish that part of the trade, by means of which British
merchants supplied foreigners with slaves. This request was opposed by Sir
William Yonge; but it was granted, on a division of the House, by a
majority of sixty-three to forty votes.

When the bill was brought in, it was opposed by the same member; upon which
the House divided; and there appeared for Sir William Yonge's amendment
thirty-eight votes, but against it fifty-six.

On a motion for the recommitment of the bill, Lord Sheffield divided the
House, against whose motion there was a majority of forty-two. And, on the
third reading of it, it was opposed again; but it was at length carried.

The speakers against the bill were; Sir William Yonge, Lord Sheffield,
Colonel Tarleton, Alderman Newnham, and Mr. Payne, Este, Lechmere,
Cawthorne, Jenkinson, and Dent. Those who spoke in favour of it were; Mr.
Pitt, Fox, William Smith, Whitbread, Francis, Burdon, Vaughan, Barham, and
Serjeants Watson and Adair.

While the foreign Slave-bill was thus passing its stages in the Commons,
Dr. Horsley, bishop of Rochester, who saw no end to the examinations, while
the witnesses were to be examined at the bar of the House of Lords, moved,
that they should be taken in future before a committee above-stairs. Dr.
Porteus, bishop of London, and the Lords Guildford, Stanhope, and
Grenville, supported this motion. But the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, aided by
the Duke of Clarence, and by the Lords Mansfield, Hay, Abingdon, and
others, negatived it by a majority of twenty-eight.

At length the bill itself was ushered into the House of Lords. On reading
it a second time, it was opposed by the Duke of C